that arbitrary deprivation encompasses cancellation, confiscation or refusal to renew identity documents without justification.117 The UNHCR Handbook’s view on the burden of proof has been cited and followed in national jurisprudence on the right to a nationality118 and by the UN Human Rights Committee.119 The Human Rights Committee’s views have, in turn, been cited by the South African High Court as it adopted a similar position on the shared burden of proof where the nationality of a child is in doubt.120 These principles may appear no more than common sense to human rights lawyers. But their affirmation is important in a context where States frequently assert that it is always for the individual to prove entitlement to nationality, even on an application for simple renewal of a document. 2.4. The interpretation of the definition of ‘stateless person’ Critical to all these debates—on the grant of nationality to otherwise stateless children, on loss and deprivation of nationality, and on arbitrary denial of nationality—is the interpretation of the definition of a ‘stateless person’: ‘a person who is not considered as a national by any State under the operation of its law’.121 As Jain noted, the difficulty of proving either nationality or statelessness, often designed into nationality administration, is a primary enabler of arbitrary deprivation and denial of nationality.122 Since the prohibition on the creation of statelessness in deprivation cases is widely accepted, including in national laws, and a State’s obligation to grant nationality to an otherwise stateless child depends on the determination of the child’s statelessness, the question of whether a person is or is not ‘really’ stateless becomes central to the protection of their rights. There have been many laments over several decades of the ‘technical, legal definition’ of statelessness.123 There has, however, been an important shift in the approach in recent years; as discussed by this author in depth elsewhere.124 In official guidance first adopted in 2012, included within the UNHCR Handbook, the UNHCR urged that statelessness should be seen as a ‘mixed question of fact and law’, warning against use of the term ‘de facto stateless’, because of the danger that ‘those who qualify as “stateless persons” ... may fail to receive the protection guaranteed under the 1954 Convention’.125 The UNHCR Handbook recognises the reality that laws, policies and practices in relation to civil registration, consular assistance, family law, interpretation of foreign law or admissible evidence may be as important for the determination of nationality or statelessness 117 Guidelines on Statelessness No 5 (n 116) para 9. S Marinai, ‘Stateless Status and Expulsion from Italian Territory: Some Remarks on the Recent Case Law of the Corte Di Cassazione’ (2022) 2 Italian Review of International and Comparative Law 154; G Gyulai, ‘Hungarian Constitutional Court Declares that Lawful Stay Requirement in Statelessness Determination Breaches International Law’ (European Network on Statelessness, 2 March 2015) <https://www.statelessness.eu/updates/blog/hungarian-constitutional-court-declares-lawful-stay-requirementstatelessness>; even where the guidance is departed from, it often shapes the arguments: see, e.g. J Carter, ‘Case Note: AS (Guinea) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 2234’ (2019) 1 Statelessness & Citizenship Review 336. 119 DZ v The Netherlands (n 59) para 8.3; Faslliu v Albania (n 70) para 7.4. 120 Tebogo Khoza v Minister of Home Affairs Case No 6700/2022 [2023] ZAGPPHC 140 (High Court of South Africa) para 36.51. 121 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons (n 71) art 1(1). The ILC considers this definition to be part of customary international law: ILC, ‘Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection with Commentaries’, in UNYBILC, vol II Part Two (2006) UN Doc A/CN.4/SER.A/2006/Add.1 (Part 2), commentary to art 8. 122 Jain (n 5) 268–75. 123 CA Batchelor, ‘Stateless Persons: Some Gaps in International Protection’ (1995) 7 IJRL 232, 232. 124 B Manby, ‘Schrödinger’s Citizenship: Framing Perspectives for the Resolution of Statelessness’ (2024) 6 Statelessness & Citizenship Review 5. 125 Handbook on Protection of Stateless Persons (n 116). 118